Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeritage Preservation - 08/05/2013 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY,AUGUST 5, 2013 7:30 P.M., SENIOR CENTER, Room 201 8950 Eden Prairie Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Ed Muehlberg (Chair), Cindy Cofer Evert (Vice Chair), Steve Olson, JoAnn McGuire, Pamela Spera, Mark Freiberg, Deb Paulson STAFF: John Gertz, Pathfinder CRM, LLC Lori Creamer, Staff Liaison Heidi Wojahn, Recording Secretary I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Following a joint meeting with the Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, Chair Muehlberg called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: McGuire moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cofer Evert requested "with Kathie Case"be removed under Item VI.C. WORK PLAN REVIEW as Case's assistance with the heritage site plaques project had not been requested. MOTION: Paulson moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the July 15, 2013 minutes as amended. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Cofer Evert abstaining. IV. REPORTS OF COMMISSION AND STAFF A. UPDATE ON CAMP TRAINING - McGuire About 30 people, including representatives from other commissions and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), attended this camp sponsored by the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC). Topics included enabling acts and ethics. Some of the information presented was geared towards historical preservation districts and was therefore not applicable to the Eden Prairie HPC. Much of it was legal-based which McGuire said she liked and could possibly use for continuing education credits. Gertz mentioned there are conferences available focusing just on the legal aspects of preservation. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 5, 2013 Page 2 Creamer said she found the camp to be interesting and educational, particularly the information on open meeting law and conflict of interest. She learned the HPC in Washington D.C. (where one of the presenters was from) functions more like our Planning Commission. Registrants received scholarships to attend, and scholarships are available for the Lanesboro conference as well. There was talk at the camp of the upcoming national conference in Philadelphia. Gertz noted there was a time in the past when the Eden Prairie HPC received scholarships through SHPO to attend the national conference. McGuire reported participants were told the National Trust for Historic Preservation has a good go-to website. Gertz said the NAPC website is good too. V. NEW BUSINESS A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA)—DEMOLITION OF ASPHALT SHED AT JOHN R. CUMMINS HOMESTEAD Creamer referred to tonight's earlier joint meeting during which Stu Fox had stated the Parks Department had applied for a COA to demolish the shed. She reviewed the meeting packet materials noting the comments on the application form are from Fox. The memo from Creamer, written with assistance from Gertz, talks about what is being proposed. The City Council memo is to help commissioners in terms of making a motion. Pictures of the shed were included in the packet. Creamer had asked for, and Fox had provided,photos without the tarp wrapping so Council could get an accurate reflection of the condition of the shed. An aerial view shows the shed's location. Creamer explained the HPC's task is to make a recommendation to Council on the demolition of the shed. Creamer asked if anyone had questions or if Gertz had anything to add. Gertz said he did not have a lot to add but explained the real reason behind the approval of the demolition is the lack of integrity, not the lack of historical significance. Even more than the lack of physical integrity is the fact it would be a lot of work to rebuild it as evident in the photos. Nobody has an interest in doing that or in using the building which leaves it without hope. Nobody wants to use it and nobody wants to invest in it. It needs a lot of work. Upon close personal inspection, it is apparent the building is dilapidated and rotting from about knee-level down. The entire building would need to be lifted up and a whole new foundation put in. All kinds of work would need to be done on the inside including wall studs and everything necessary to attach to a new lower assembly. The roof needs work, too. He doesn't want to make a case for why the shed should be torn down,but that is the condition of the building. It's more that nobody wants to use it and there is no purpose. Cofer Evert added the building wasn't original to the property and not that old. Gertz said if it dates to the 1950s, it is part of the Grill family. Time on the property and the significance for the property extends to all three families. One could say it is the last building associated with the Grills. They were responsible for putting it up and using it so there may be historical significance. It probably fits into the period of HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 5, 2013 Page 3 significance, but it's all about the condition of the building and the fact nobody wants to use it. We could insist it not be torn down and it could sit there and continue to crumble away, or we could approve the removal of the building and have proper documentation done so something is in the files providing a reference. Creamer asked if Gertz had previously said documentation was pretty much complete. Gertz said documentation has been done multiple times. Years ago, students enrolled in Northwest Technical Institute's (NTI) drafting program came to the property and did measured drawings of every building on site including some that no longer exist, so we have actual drawings and that's about as good as it gets. McGuire asked if the shed was an "attractive nuisance" which is a legal term meaning kids would be playing in it and could get hurt. Gertz said that aspect exists, too. He doesn't think the building will fall down right now, but it surely could attract kids if it were unwrapped and just left. They could get in there and do stuff and get hurt. It represents a safety issue because it isn't secure. McGuire said that should be another primary reason to take it down. Gertz agreed saying he thought this particular issue had already been identified by the Parks Department. Freiberg said another thing to think about is the fact the place is rented. If there is a group of people on site, potentially it's a real danger because it's quite possible kids would be around and could get hurt. Muehlberg referenced a garden shed with a roof that had caved in. Gertz said that building was in even worse condition than the shed. There was also a wood shed on the property for years that deteriorated. Freiberg commented on his surprise on how far away from the house the shed sits. Gertz said it does sit far away, but at one time there were many more buildings as it was a whole farmyard. Freiberg said it wouldn't detract from the significance of the house. Cofer Evert said when the review was done for the teardown of the outbuilding behind Dunn Brothers at the Smith Douglas More House (SDM), the request was made to salvage some of the wood because it had value. She asked if there was any value in the pieces of wood or structure at all worth saving. Gertz said he honestly didn't think so. It's all modern dimensional lumber, German Drop siding,readily available at any lumberyard today. It is the same type of siding salvaged from the shed at SDM. It is possible something of value might appear from below during demolition. A lot of stuff gets thrown under barn buildings. The shed is sort of elevated off the ground so there might be things down there. It's just a matter of being there and observing when it's torn down. Cofer Evert asked if Gertz would be able to be there during demolition and if we could request his presence. Gertz said he could be there and his presence could be requested. Muehlberg said that could be part of the motion. Cofer said the rafters look pretty open but asked if it was possible there could be something up there. Gertz said it is something that needs to be looked at because you never know where there might be an artifact. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 5, 2013 Page 4 Olson asked if,pending the decision to demolish, a last set of photographs needs capturing. Muehlberg said yes, there would need to be final documentation. Olson asked if, referring to the earlier measured drawings, the files need collating. Gertz said the last couple times buildings were demolished,probably the shed at SDM and non-historic buildings before that, things went to a file. In this case, it would go into the Cummins Grill (CG)property files and be listed as a shed demo. All the documentation and photographs would be part of the file. It is possible to add the measured drawings. The drawings exist at the City in CD form. If we want to locate the shed drawing and add that set of plans to the property file, that can be done. Olson asked if he was correct in understanding that the house is the historic resource and the shed is a contributing element to a house but not a district. Gertz said the house was not designated as a district. Some of the buildings were considered contributing and others were not contributing based on age and condition, etc. Even though they may have been historically significant, some did not meet the criteria based on integrity so they never made it on the list. He would have to go back and see what condition the shed was in when it was first designated to find out if it was a contributing or non-contributing building. It may have been contributing at that time, but it wouldn't be now. Gertz stated the whole property has taken a hit over time. He wouldn't want somebody from SHPO to start reconsidering its national register status. It's on the national register now but it has lost a lot because of the loss of site,referred to as "context". It has been impacted by the surrounding park development, the recent highway expansion that took 20+feet of the front lawn, the loss of buildings, and the parking lot built in the back. Those types of things chip away at the site's context so integrity is simultaneously eroded. Back when the site was nominated, the form would have said something along the lines of"the site has good integrity and the context is such that it can convey its original agricultural roots and heritage and grade. Today, he doesn't see that at all anymore. It's gone and lacks that context, and that's a hit on the integrity of the site. Those things can actually erode a property's historical significance down the road and although rare, properties are delisted. He doesn't think this would be the case here because the house itself is in such good condition and other things have been done around it to mitigate it,but it does decrease the value of the site. Freiberg said he saw a painting once of what the farm looked like originally with the windmill and buildings. It doesn't look anything like the painting. Muehlberg said the planned landscaping should help offset and bring back that experience. Cofer Evert agreed it adds some value back in. Gertz said SHPO was involved in the process so they were on board with it. He also noted a farm house really doesn't tell the story; it's all the buildings and the house and the land. Spera asked if that would be a reason to keep the shed. Gertz said he personally sees no reason the shed should go, it's just that nobody wants it. Basically that's the problem. Nobody wants to put money into keeping it. The Eden Prairie Historical Society issued a statement indicating they have no interest in it, and the Parks Department doesn't want it. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 5, 2013 Page 5 Muehlberg asked if it was possible to dismantle instead of demolish it as was done with the school house. Gertz said that wouldn't help and was a different type of demo. Muehlberg said he was thinking more along the lines of keeping the materials in case it potentially ever gets rebuilt. Gertz said he didn't see much value in dismantling as the value is in having the building there. That is lost once the building's gone. Spera asked if there was a way to fix just the dangerous aspect of the building without doing a complete renovation just to make it safe if it's an attractive nuisance for kids. Gertz said it could be boarded up, but that won't stop it from continuing to decay. It might just delay the inevitable. What really saves buildings is usage. If a building doesn't have a purpose which does not necessarily mean people in and out using the building, then it's not likely to be saved. That's the cold hard truth about historic properties that's why everyone tries to find adaptive uses for buildings. People are constantly looking at alternatives for use of historic properties. If they don't, they will be demolished. That's the way it works. More and more historic properties have to pull their own weight. Not only do they need to have a use,but a use to generate funds which is even more difficult. Cofer Evert brought up a prior HPC discussion about storage needs mentioning an overflowing building next to the Riley Jacques House (RJ). She asked if the shed could be used as a storage facility with a tiny bit of repair. Gertz said he didn't have all the answers. If the Parks Department wanted it they would use it for storage,but they don't want it. He doesn't recommend anyone keep anything of value in it. Items used by the theater group are stored at RJ, but they wouldn't want them as far away as the CG property. The only use he can think of is for storing tools or apple baskets if the site develops an orchard, but the little concrete block shed on-site serves the same purpose. Freiberg referred to a picture of the inside showing rot a couple feet up from the ground. Gertz said he had much more damning photos. It needs a lot of work. Olson said since there are measured drawings, and because we have such good documentation and the shed is in such poor condition, we historically wouldn't be out too much if there was a windfall of money and a decision was made to reconstruct a building of the same nature. A little bit of historic fabric would be lost, but we're paying a pretty healthy maintenance or risk price over it. Cofer Evert said it's an eyesore. Spera said money spent on this means money taken away from something else. Gertz said there is no doubt it's an eyesore, but that is not reason to throw away a building. Paulson said the lack of interest on so many levels reiterates that this is not necessarily an impulsive, careless decision. Gertz said if it were in better condition and didn't need so much work, he'd recommend removing the asphalt siding to see what the rest of the building looks like and maybe restore it, but that's not where it's at. Olson said if he needed to make a case before Council for Overlook dollars or this, he would choose the Overlook. Cofer agreed she also wants the Overlook. Gertz said it's true there are other places to spend resources rather than HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 5, 2013 Page 6 saving a building that might just sit empty anyway. Something would eventually end up going in there, but he doesn't know that the money to restore the building would be offset by a real minor use of storing a couple wheelbarrows. Freiberg said he imagines it would be fairly cheap to demo it. Muehlberg noted the Green Acres Barn trusses and significance saying it would be far more painful to demolish something with materials not readily available. Maybe there will be an orchard shed in need of construction down the road if the documents are still available. Gertz said there are plenty of plans to work from. Several buildings have been documented. Muehlberg asked if there was an overall site plan of the buildings. Gertz said NTI did a site plan. Muehlberg said it would be nice to have a reference. Gertz said some of the interpretive panels on site show the early farmstead aerials. There are ways to convey information about the buildings that were once out there. Gertz said if the building was in much better condition, it would probably be worth saving even if it didn't have a defined use. That isn't the case. It's a lot of money to rebuild the foundation. Creamer said at this point we are seeking a recommendation. Muehlberg said the only thing to add was to make sure somebody is available to watch the process in case something turns up. He asked if there was any more discussion. Seeing none, he called for a motion. MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Paulson, the Heritage Preservation Commission has found that the demolition of the asphalt-sided shed, as submitted by the City of Eden Prairie, meets the general preservation standards and recommends the City Council approve the application for COA#2013-01-004 with the additional request Gertz be on-site during demolition. Motion carried 7-0. Cofer Evert circulated copies of the pictures Gertz was talking about showing the outbuildings and what the farmyard looked like at one time. Creamer stated this item will now go to the August 20th City Council meeting. VI. FYI ITEMS Gertz reported he received an email response from SHPO regarding the Legacy Grant. Unfortunately the grant proposal was reviewed and found to be incomplete. Gertz modeled it after grant requests for similar projects without realizing the state legislature has since changed the requirements for grant proposals. It was his oversight and he takes full responsibility. The good news is the grant was rejected based solely on a technicality and not on merit. He was told it was a strong grant proposal and was asked to complete the missing information and resubmit it by October 11 at which time he expects it to go through. Olson commented the worst that can happen is a little bit of overlap will be lost with the other grant project. Gertz said he does not expect that to be problematic but did suggest moving forward with the CLG grant by having Creamer ask the firms who provided information for the Legacy Grant to submit proposals for the Riley Jacques interpretive panels. Creamer agreed it was a good idea and to work on it. She said SHPO HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 5, 2013 Page 7 informed her monthly progress reports do not need to be submitted until work on the project begins. Creamer distributed information Gertz had put together from past historic tours based on Paulson's expressed interest in having the commissioners tour Eden Prairie's historic properties. After discussion of the open meeting law and which sites to visit, Creamer said she would try to make arrangements to schedule the September meeting at Glen Lake Children's Camp. Gertz noted the Picha farm is nearby and might also be an interesting property to visit. Cofer Evert stated the HPC went to the Dorenkemper House last year,but it is open during Sunbonnet Days for new commissioners who would like to see it. Creamer said she is still seeking someone to attend the upcoming conference being held September 11-13 in Lanesboro. One commissioner must attend. Registration and meals are covered. Gertz said Creamer could satisfy the attendance requirement if nobody else is able to attend. Creamer will send a status update next week. Gertz asked if the three-gabled structure behind the Goodrich Ramus Barn was approved. Creamer said the last she knew the request to erect it was on hold but she will look into it further and report back. VII. FUTURE MEETINGS/EVENTS - Creamer The next HPC meeting will be Monday, September 16, 2013, 7 p.m., location to be determined. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Olson moved, seconded by Cofer Evert, to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Muehlberg adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m.